[1. Express (NCC, Arts. 1443-1446), b.

Requisites]
Case Citation: G.R. No. L-26699

Date: March 16, 1976

Petitioners: BENITA SALAO, assisted by her husband, GREGORIO MARCELO; ALMARIO ALCURIZA,
ARTURO ALCURIZA, OSCAR ALCURIZA and ANITA ALCURIZA, the latter two being
minors are represented by guardian ad litem, ARTURO ALCURIZA, plaintiffs-appellants

Respondents: JUAN S. SALAO, later substituted by PABLO P. SALAO, Administrator of the Intestate of
JUAN S. SALAO; now MERCEDES P. VDA. DE SALAO, ROBERTO P. SALAO, MARIA
SALAO VDA. DE SANTOS, LUCIANA P. SALAO, ISABEL SALAO DE SANTOS, and PABLO
P. SALAO, as successors-in-interest of the late JUAN S. SALAO, together with PABLO P.
SALAO, Administrator, defendants-appellants.

Ponente AQUINO, J.

Doctrine:

Subject matter of Calunuran Fishpond

controversy:

Antecedent Facts: The spouses Manuel Salao and Valentina Ignacio of Barrio Dampalit, Malabon, Rizal begot four
children named Patricio, Alejandra, Juan (Banli) and Ambrosia.
 His eldest son, Patricio, died in 1886 survived by his only child. Valentin Salao.

 There is no documentary evidence as to what, properties formed part of Manuel Salao's

estate, if any. His widow died on May 28, 1914. After her death, her estate was
administered by her daughter Ambrosia.

 It was partitioned extrajudicially in a deed dated December 29, 1918 but notarized. The
deed was signed by her four legal heirs, namely, her three children, Alejandra, Juan and
Ambrosia, and her grandson, Valentin Salao, in representation of his deceased father,
Patricio.

To each of the legal heirs of Valentina Ignacio was adjudicated a distributive share valued at
P8,135.25

 Valentin Salao (who was then already forty-eight years old) was given the biggest
fishpond with an area of 50,469 square meters, a smaller fishpond with an area of 6,989
square meters and the riceland with a net area of 9,905 square meters. Those parcels
of land had an aggregate appraised value of P13,501 which exceeded Valentin's
distributive share. So in the deed of partition he was directed to pay to his co-heirs the
sum of P5,365.75. That arrangement, which was obviously intended to avoid the
fragmentation of the lands, was beneficial to Valentin.

By virtue of the partition the heirs became "dueños absolutos de sus respectivas propiedadas, y
podran inmediatamente tomar posesion de sus bienes, en la forma como se han distribuido y
llevado a cabo las adjudicaciones" (page 20, Exh. 21).[absolute owners of their respective
properties, and may immediately take possession of their assets, in the manner in which the
awards have been distributed and carried out.]

The documentary evidence proves that in 1911 or prior to the death of Valentina Ignacio her two
children, Juan Y. Salao, Sr. and Ambrosia Salao, secured a Torrens title, OCT No. 185 of the
Registry of Deeds of Pampanga, in their names for a forty-seven-hectare fishpond located at
Sitio Calunuran, Lubao, Pampanga (Exh. 14). It is also known as Lot No. 540 of the Hermosa
cadastre because that part of Lubao later became a part of Bataan.

 The Calunuran fishpond is the bone of contention in this case.

  Plaintiffs' theory is that Juan Y. Salao, Sr. and his sister Ambrosia had engaged in the
fishpond business. Where they obtained the capital is not shown in any documentary
evidence. Plaintiffs' version is that Valentin Salao and Alejandra Salao were included in
that joint venture, that the funds used were the earnings of the properties supposedly
inherited from Manuel Salao, and that those earnings were used in the acquisition of the
Calunuran fishpond. There is no documentary evidence to support that theory.

On the other hand, the defendants contend that the Calunuran fishpond consisted of lands
purchased by Juan Y. Salao, Sr. and Ambrosia Salao in 1905, 1906, 1907 and 1908 as, shown
in their Exhibits 8, 9, 10 and 13. But this point is disputed by the plaintiffs.

 However, there can be no controversy as to the fact that after Juan Y. Salao, Sr. and
Ambrosia Salao secured a Torrens title for the Calunuran fishpond in 1911 they
exercised dominical rights over it to the exclusion of their nephew, Valentin Salao.

The intestate estate of Valentin Salao was partitioned extrajudicially on December 28, 1934
between his two daughters, Benita Salao-Marcelo and Victorina Salao-Alcuriza (Exh. 32). His
estate consisted of the two fishponds which he had inherited in 1918 from his grandmother,
Valentina Ignacio.

If it were true that he had a one-third interest in the Calunuran and Lewa fishponds with a total
area of 145 hectares registered in 1911 and 1917 in the names of his aunt and uncle, Ambrosia
Salao and Juan Y. Salao, Sr., respectively, it is strange that no mention of such interest was
made in the extrajudicial partition of his estate in 1934.

It is relevant to mention that on April 8, 1940 Ambrosia Salao donated to her grandniece, plaintiff
Benita Salao, three lots located at Barrio Dampalit with a total area of 5,832 square meters (Exit.
L). As donee Benita Salao signed the deed of donation.

 On that occasion she could have asked Ambrosia Salao to deliver to her and to the
children of her sister, Victorina, the Calunuran fishpond if it were true that it was held in
trust by Ambrosia as the share of Benita's father in the alleged joint venture.
 But she did not make any such demand. It was only after Ambrosia Salao's death that
she thought of filing an action for the reconveyance of the Calunuran fishpond which
was allegedly held in trust and which had become the sole property of Juan Salao y
Santiago (Juani).

On September 30, 1944 or during the Japanese occupation and about a year before Ambrosia
Salao's death on September 14, 1945 due to senility, she donated her one-
half proindiviso share in the two fishponds in question to her nephew, Juan S. Salao, Jr. (Juani)

 The said deed of donation was registered

The lawyer of Benita Salao and the Children of Victorina Salao in a letter dated January 26,
1951 informed Juan S. Salao, Jr. that his clients had a one-third share in the two fishponds and
that when Juani took possession thereof in 1945, he refused to give Benita and Victorina's
children their one-third share of the net fruits which allegedly amounted to P200,000

 Juan S. Salao, Jr. in his answer dated February 6, 1951 categorically stated that
Valentin Salao did not have any interest in the two fishponds and that the sole owners
thereof his father Banli and his aunt Ambrosia, as shown in the Torrens titles issued in
1911 and 1917, and that he Juani was the donee of Ambrosia's one-half share
 Benita Salao and her nephews and niece filed their original complaint against Juan S.
Salao, Jr. on January 9, 1952 in the Court of First Instance of Bataan
 Juan S. Salao, Jr. in his answer pleaded as a defense the indefeasibility of the Torrens
title secured by his father and aunt.
MTC/RTC Ruling: After trial the trial court in its decision consisting of one hundred ten printed pages dismissed
the amended complaint and the counter-claim.
 The trial court found that there was no community of property among Juan Y. Salao, Sr.,
Ambrosia Salao and Valentin Salao when the Calunuran and Pinanganacan (Lewa)
lands were acquired; that a co-ownership over the real properties of Valentina Ignacio
existed among her heirr after her death in 1914; that the co-ownership was administered
by Ambrosia Salao and that it subsisted up to 1918 when her estate was partitioned
among her three children and her grandson, Valentin Salao.

 The trial court surmised that the co-ownership which existed from 1914 to 1918 misled
the plaintiffs and their witnesses and caused them to believe erroneously that there was
a co-ownership in 1905 or thereabouts. The trial court speculated that if valentin had a
hand in the conversion into fishponds of the Calunuran and Lewa lands, he must have
done so on a salary or profit- sharing basis.
 The trial court rationalized that Valentin's omission during his lifetime to assail the
Torrens titles of Juan and Ambrosia signified that "he was not a co-owner" of the
fishponds.
 It also held that the donation was validly executed and that even if it were void Juan S.
Salao, Jr., the donee, would nevertheless be the sole legal heir of the donor, Ambrosia
Salao, and would inherit the properties donated to him.

CA Ruling: The appeals, which deal with factual and legal issues, were made to the Court of Appeals.
However, as the amounts involved exceed two hundred thousand pesos, the Court of Appeals
elevated the case to this Court in its resolution.

Issue: I. WON the Calunuran fishpond was held in trust for Valentin Salao by Juan Y. Salao,
Sr. and Ambrosia Salao. – No.
II. WON plaintiffs' action for reconveyance had already prescribed. – Yes.

Plaintiffs’ The plaintiffs contend that their action is "to enforce a trust which defendant" Juan S. Salao, Jr.
Contention: allegedly violated. The existence of a trust was not definitely alleged in plaintiffs' complaint. They
mentioned trust for the first time on page 2 of their appelants' brief.

SC Ruling: "In its technical legal sense, a trust is defined as the right, enforceable solely in equity, to the
beneficial enjoyment of property, the legal title to which is vested in another, but the word
'trust' is frequently employed to indicate duties, relations, and responsibilities which are not
strictly technical trusts
 A person who establishes a trust is called the trustor; one in whom confidence is
reposed as regards property for the benefit of another person is known as the trustee;
and the person for whose benefit the trust has been created is referred to as the
beneficiary" (Art. 1440, Civil Code). There is a fiduciary relation between the trustee and
the cestui que trust as regards certain property, real, personal, money or choses in
action (Pacheco vs. Arro, 85 Phil. 505).

 "Trusts are either express or implied. Express trusts are created by the intention of the
trustor or of the parties. Implied trusts come into being by operation of law" (Art. 1441,
Civil Code). "No express trusts concerning an immovable or any interest therein may be
proven by parol evidence. An implied trust may be proven by oral evidence" (Ibid, Arts.
1443 and 1457).
 "No particular words are required for the creation of an express trust, it being sufficient
that a trust is clearly intended"
 "Express trusts are those which are created by the direct and positive acts of the
parties, by some writing or deed, or will, or by words either expressly or impliedly
evincing an intention to create a trust"
 "Implied trusts are those which, without being expressed, are deducible from the
nature of the transaction as matters of intent, or which are superinduced on the
transaction by operation of law as matter of equity, independently of the particular
intention of the parties" They are ordinarily subdivided into resulting and constructive
trusts (89 C.J.S. 722).
  "A resulting trust. is broadly defined as a trust which is raised or created by the act or
construction of law, but in its more restricted sense it is a trust raised by implication of
law and presumed to have been contemplated by the parties, the intention as to which is
to be found in the nature of their transaction, but not expressed in the deed or
instrument of conveyance (89 C.J.S. 725). Examples of resulting trusts are found in
articles 1448 to 1455 of the Civil Code. (See Padilla vs. Court of Appeals, L-31569,
September 28, 1973, 53 SCRA 168, 179; Martinez vs. Graño 42 Phil. 35).
 On the other hand, a constructive trust is -a trust "raised by construction of law, or
arising by operation of law". In a more restricted sense and as contra-distinguished from
a resulting trust, a constructive trust is "a trust not created by any words, either
expressly or impliedly evincing a direct intension to create a trust, but by the
construction of equity in order to satisfy the demands of justice." It does not arise "by
agreement or intention, but by operation of law." (89 C.J.S. 726-727).
 Thus, "if property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by
force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from
whom the property comes" (Art. 1456, Civil Code).
 Or "if a person obtains legal title to property by fraud or concealment, courts of equity
will impress upon the title a so-called constructive trust in favor of the defrauded party".
Such a constructive trust is not a trust in the technical sense. (Gayondato vs. Treasurer
of the P. I., 49 Phil. 244).

I. There was no resulting trust in this case because there never was any intention on the
part of Juan Y. Salao, Sr., Ambrosia Salao and Valentin Salao to create any trust.

Not a scintilla of documentary evidence was presented by the plaintiffs to prove that
there was an express trust over the Calunuran fishpond in favor of Valentin Salao. Purely
parol evidence was offered by them to prove the alleged trust. Their claim that in the oral
partition in 1919 of the two fishponds the Calunuran fishpond was assigned to Valentin
Salao is legally untenable.

 It is legally indefensible because the terms of article 1443 of the Civil Code (already in
force when the action herein was instituted) are peremptory and unmistakable: parol
evidence cannot be used to prove an express trust concerning realty.

Is plaintiffs' massive oral evidence sufficient to prove an implied trust, resulting or

constructive, regarding the two fishponds?

 Plaintiffs' pleadings and evidence cannot be relied upon to prove an implied trust.
The trial court's firm conclusion that there was no community of property during
the lifetime of Valentina; Ignacio or before 1914 is substantiated by defendants'
documentary evidence.
 The 1919 partition of Valentina Ignacio's estate covered about seventeen  hectares of
fishponds and ricelands (Exh. 21). If at the time that partition was made there were
eleven hectares of land in Barrio Dampalit belonging to Manuel Salao, who died in 1885,
those eleven hectares would have been partitioned in writing as in the case of the
seventeen hectares belonging to Valentina Ignacio's estate.
 It is incredible that the forty-seven-hectare Calunuran fishpond would be adjudicated to
Valentin Salao mere by by word of mouth. Incredible because for the partition of
the seventeen hectares of land left by Valentina Ignacio an elaborate "Escritura de
Particion" consisting of twenty-two pages had to be executed by the four Salao heirs.
Surely, for the partition of one hundred forty-five hectares of fishponds among three of
the same Salao heirs an oral adjudication would not have sufficed.

The improbability of the alleged oral partition becomes more evident when it is borne in mind
that the two fishponds were registered land and "the act of registration" is "the operative act" that
conveys and affects the land

 That means that any transaction affecting the registered land should be evidenced by a
registerable deed. The fact that Valentin Salao and his successors-in-interest, the
 plaintiffs, never bothered for a period of nearly forty years to procure any documentary
evidence to establish his supposed interest ox participation in the two fishponds is very
suggestive of the absence of such interest.

The plaintiffs utterly failed to measure up to the yardstick that a trust must be proven by
clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence. It cannot rest on vague and uncertain
evidence or on loose, equivocal or indefinite declarations

o Trust and trustee; establishment of trust by parol evidence; certainty of proof.  — Where
a trust is to be established by oral proof, the testimony supporting it must be sufficiently
strong to prove the right of the alleged beneficiary with as much certainty as if a
document proving the trust were shown. A trust cannot be established, contrary to
the recitals of a Torrens title, upon vague and inconclusive proof. 
o Trusts; evidence needed to establish trust on parol testimony. — In order to establish
a trust in real property by parol evidence, the proof should be as fully convincing
as if the act giving rise to the trust obligation were proven by an authentic
document. Such a trust cannot be established upon testimony consisting in large part
of insecure surmises based on ancient hearsay.

The foregoing rulings are good under article 1457 of the Civil Code which, as already
noted, allows an implied trust to be proven by oral evidence. Trustworthy oral evidence is
required to prove an implied trust because, oral evidence can be easily fabricated.

 On the other hand, a Torrens title is generally a conclusive of the ownership of the land
referred to therein (Sec. 47, Act 496). A strong presumption exists. that Torrens titles
were regularly issued and that they are valid. In order to maintain an action for
reconveyance, proof as to the fiduciary relation of the parties must be clear and
convincing

There was no resulting trust in this case because there never was any intention on the
part of Juan Y. Salao, Sr., Ambrosia Salao and Valentin Salao to create any trust.

 There was no constructive trust because the registration of the two fishponds in
the names of Juan and Ambrosia was not vitiated by fraud or mistake. This is not
a case where to satisfy the demands of justice it is necessary to consider the
Calunuran fishpond " being held in trust by the heirs of Juan Y. Salao, Sr. for the
heirs of Valentin Salao.

II. Plaintiffs' action is clearly barred by prescription or laches

 Under Act No. 190, whose statute of limitation would apply if there were an implied trust
in this case, the longest period of extinctive prescription was only ten year (Sec. 40;
Diaz vs. Gorricho and Aguado, 103 Phil. 261, 266).
 The Calunuran fishpond was registered in 1911. The written extrajudicial demand for its
reconveyance was made by the plaintiffs in 1951. Their action was filed in 1952 or after
the lapse of more than forty years from the date of registration.
 "Undue delay in the enforcement of a right is strongly persuasive of a lack of merit in the
claim, since it is human nature for a person to assert his rights most strongly when they
are threatened or invaded". "Laches or unreasonable delay on the part of a plaintiff in
seeking to enforce a right is not only persuasive of a want of merit but may, according to
the circumstances, be destructive of the right itself."

Having reached the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the reconveyance of
the Calunuran fishpond, it is no longer n to Pass upon the validity of the donation made
by Ambrosia Salao to Juan S. Salao, Jr. of her one-half share in the two fishponds The
plaintiffs have no right and personality to assil that donation.
  Even if the donation were declared void, the plaintiffs would not have any successional
rights to Ambrosia's share. The sole legal heir of Ambrosia was her nephew, Juan, Jr.,
her nearest relative within the third degree.

The trial court's judgment is affirmed.